Teenage Violence

Quote:

---

Threatened with a knife by a 14-year-old girl - it could be a disturbing headline from any national newspaper. But what if it happened in your own home and the teenager wielding the weapon was your own daughter?

Parents are regularly being threatened, abused, even beaten up by their own children, says a UK parental guidance charity. Many have reached the point where they are afraid to be left alone in the house with them.

ONE MOTHER'S STORY

One minute we can be sitting down watching television, the next [my 14-year-old daughter] flies out of her seat, switches off the telly and launches into a torrent of abuse. She calls me names like 'cow' or '*****'. She's trashed the house several times and has even hit me and her younger brother and sister. When she's calm, she's a loving, lovely girl. But I am always treading on eggshells, frightened of her and at my wits' end. It's like living with an abusive partner - I just don't know what to do next.

New figures from Parentline Plus reveal its helpline received three calls a day on average last year from parents suffering verbal or physical abuse. For some it has been going on for years. ...

---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8366113.stm

Is it true that teenagers are becoming more violent?

Jeez, that story is quite shocking. Being a teen myself I could never imagine hitting either my mom or dad. I suppose it doesn't depend on age, but rather on reluctance to get help. As the article says, it seems taboo for parents to call for help when being abused by their child, for them it's humiliating and embarressing. The same situation can occur when parents have a problem; my dad is an ex-alcoholic and still has major anger issues to this day and I usually feel like I'm walking on eggshells around him. He is far too proud to want to consult a therapist or somehting of the like, and thus leaves the problem unresolved.

The end result is that the main source and continuation of domestic abuse, arises out of somebody's reluctance to deal with the issue. In this articles situaiton it's the social taboo that makes these poor parents reluctant to call for help. And I can't blame them.

Anyway, those kids must seriously have some kind of psychological issues. I had no idea that this kind of thing was happening. I've felt so guilty for quite a while over the tough times I've had with my mom, but never did our conflicts ever result in anywhere close to the things in the article. Rather, I feel like she may have discouraged me too much, because now I can only think lowly of myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8366113.stm

Is it true that teenagers are becoming more violent?

---

I take it that the question is meant to be rhetorical.

I think we're more aware of violence these days rather than it is more prevalent. Brian's golden age never really existed.(I take it that's what your coment implied Brian). It was just shoved under the carpet, or the people involved didn't matter. I used to hear he same thing said about teens in the 70s.

The problem is teens didn't exist until the 50's(?), and so they weren't singled out as a group.

Look at any social history and you'll see violence. I remember reading about a 9 year old boy who kept a mistress and drank etc in the 19th C. In my opinion it's not a modern phenomena - we just have the media coverage to hear about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I think we're more aware of violence these days rather than it is more prevalent. Brian's golden age never really existed.(I take it that's what your coment implied Brian). It was just shoved under the carpet, or the people involved didn't matter. I used to hear he same thing said about teens in the 70s.

The problem is teens didn't exist until the 50's(?), and so they weren't singled out as a group.

Look at any social history and you'll see violence. I remember reading about a 9 year old boy who kept a mistress and drank etc in the 19th C. In my opinion it's not a modern phenomena - we just have the media coverage to hear about it.

---

You are right, it is not a modern phenomenon but not adequately dealing with it ( as at present ) certainly is.

Quote:

---

ONE MOTHER'S STORY

One minute we can be sitting down watching television, the next [my 14-year-old daughter] flies out of her seat, switches off the telly and launches into a torrent of abuse. She calls me names like 'cow' or '*****'. She's trashed the house several times and has even hit me and her younger brother and sister. When she's calm, she's a loving, lovely girl. But I am always treading on eggshells, frightened of her and at my wits' end. It's like living with an abusive partner - I just don't know what to do next.

New figures from Parentline Plus reveal its helpline received three calls a day on average last year from parents suffering verbal or physical abuse. For some it has been going on for years. ...

---

I'd say that in the vast majority of cases that this is the parents poor parenting that has caused such behaviour. I'm not saying that this is always the case, but the majority of situations are in my experience. If parents don't set boundaries from an early stage then they will come to reap the rewards of that in later life, and in some cases it will be too late.

I heard somewhere recently that there was a time when children didn't know their rights - had absolutely no idea about them but they knew very well the about the consequences of their actions, which instilled a personal sense of responsibility.

Now children know more about their rights than parents but have far less responsibility, which has instilled a sense of entitlement.

I think the foundation has to be properly laid. If there are bricks missing, it is difficult to try and correct once so much other stuff has been built and the structure is in danger of collapse. It is ironic since parenting is a work in progress and it has its fashions. Children are small versions of adults now and we are supposed to treat them as such. We reap the consequences of social pressure to give and give and give in the name of keeping the child happy and then more to distract them while we try to have personal time. Parenting is now reactive rather than responsive. I don't have evidence of this - just my view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

You are right, it is not a modern phenomenon but not adequately dealing with it ( as at present ) certainly is.

---

I agree with you Brian. Its a difficult question complicated by local conditions, families etc.

A woman who lived near us had just this problem with her son, and it was certainly the fault of both his parents. It's very sad, and as Neely said, it was a lack of very early boundary setting compounded by alcoholism and some odd attitudes that were inculcated in the kids.

In a different sphere, on the estate where I grew up, some of the families there are clearly fully immersed in the drug culture which has repercussions for the kids. Its a bit like the estate in the kidnap case in Dewsbury the other year. No wonder the teens are violent.

Wow. I knew some kids were screwed up, but I didn't know they were THAT bad. I would tend to agree with Delta. Kids have to know their rights and the limits of those rights. During my earlier teenage years I cracked heads with my folks, but even though I never consciously thought of getting violent I knew my dad would smack the **** out of me if it ever came to that. This is indeed an age of entitlement though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

Is it true that teenagers are becoming more violent?

---

This is most of the answer:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Look at any social history and you'll see violence. I remember reading about a 9 year old boy who kept a mistress and drank etc in the 19th C. In my opinion it's not a modern phenomena - we just have the media coverage to hear about it.

---

But I think it does miss a point that there is also a higher prevalance of violence and the perpetrators are getting younger.

Less war = more violence at home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I think we're more aware of violence these days rather than it is more prevalent. Brian's golden age never really existed.(I take it that's what your coment implied Brian). It was just shoved under the carpet, or the people involved didn't matter. I used to hear he same thing said about teens in the 70s.

The problem is teens didn't exist until the 50's(?), and so they weren't singled out as a group.

Look at any social history and you'll see violence. I remember reading about a 9 year old boy who kept a mistress and drank etc in the 19th C. In my opinion it's not a modern phenomena - we just have the media coverage to hear about it.

---

I also think Paul hit this on the head - no pun on the violence intended ;) I think these things go in cycles and depend on time and place. Teen violence has actually come down in New York City since i was a teen thirty years ago, but that certainly can't be said for every place in the US. In fact i was recently reading how bad it has gotten in Chicago. Why the fluctuations? I have no idea. Probably specific reasons for every time and place. The root of the problem I believe has to do with the upbringing, how children are socialized. Now that's a vague term and I don't claim to be an expert, so I'll just leave it at that.

This reminds me of another shocking story from a couple weeks ago here in Montreal. This group of teenagers were heckling/harassing a passing woman on the street, and a 23 year old man stepped in to put a stop to it. The group of teens beat him with rocks and put him in the hospital.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/st...an-beaten.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

I'd say that in the vast majority of cases that this is the parents poor parenting that has caused such behaviour.

---

Yes. But isn't the root of the problem for many of us the poor parenting experienced by our parents in their childhood?

Quote:

---

Now children know more about their rights than parents but have far less responsibility, which has instilled a sense of entitlement.

---

Children should know about their rights as long as they know what they are really about. It has been emphasised that feeling of entitlement is rather common but are we all entitled to everything? Should we be?

We have done a great job at passing across the message that children have rights but it seems like we are failing at making our children understand that they have responsibilities and, as parents, we have entitlements too.

It is great to be aware of our rights but we really need to have a clear understanding of what these involve.

This reminds me an incident that happened in one of my classes. I have a dyslexic student, who is usually very hardworking and has no problem completing the tasks set for her. During a chat one day, I mentioned that during exams, she would be entitled to have some extra time to compensate for her dyslexia. Following couple of weeks, I noticed that she was not working as hard as she used to, leaving her tasks unfinished etc; so, one day, when she was chatting with others instead of working on her task, I quietly "encouraged" her to carry on with her task and try to finish it before the end of the class. She turned around and said, "But you told me I would be entitled extra time!"

As I said, it is great to know our rights but the limits/boundaries should be set very clearly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

Yes. But isn't the root of the problem for many of us the poor parenting experienced by our parents in their childhood?

---

Yep. We reap what we sow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

Children should know about their rights as long as they know what they are really about. It has been emphasised that feeling of entitlement is rather common but are we all entitled to everything? Should we be?

---

Bravo!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

We have done a great job at passing across the message that children have rights but it seems like we are failing at making our children understand that they have responsibilities and, as parents, we have entitlements too.

---

I'd be letting an ironic laugh out at this one, were it not so disappointingly true.

People complain about today's youth need to wait for another 10-15 years and see what we're about to unleash onto an unsuspecting world.

Echoing Gladys, if today's problem are the problems of yesterday's parents, these kids who have never learnt responsibility never will, and they're passing it on to their kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

As I said, it is great to know our rights but the limits/boundaries should be set very clearly.

---

I shudder at seeing how kids are brought up without boundaries. I almost feel guilty at times, expecting my kids to be able to behave and live within set guidelines, being a kid-Nazi compared to the laissez-faire attitude of just about every other parent.

Just don't get me started on commercialism....

:D

I think the extreme cases of teenage violence is often coupled with mental illness; However, I think that often, parents are putting too much responsibility on thier childrens shoulders. I saw a cute japanese cartoon where the American parents said, "Son, we are getting older; so we need you to act older; Here is a list of things you are now in charge of".
When I was young, we were just getting advanced studies in school. My mother was a housewife and took care of household chores and siblings. I didn't have a job until I graduated. Bullying at school was dealt with very harshly and teachers walked the halls; we didn't see children being stabbed to death while 50 teenagers texted the pictures to friends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soundofmusic

I think the extreme cases of teenage violence is often coupled with mental illness;

---

Minority only would be my guess.

I live nice & close to the heart of most of the violence committed in NZ and I'd estimate that 75%+ of the murders of teenagers are because of drugs.

Assaults; mostly little dicks with more testosterone than brains, and when you've been brought up in houses where your old man biffs your mother around every week or so, it's easy to fall into the trap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soundofmusic

However, I think that often, parents are putting too much responsibility on thier childrens shoulders. I saw a cute japanese cartoon where the American parents said, "Son, we are getting older; so we need you to act older; Here is a list of things you are now in charge of".

---

I'm firmly in the "complete lack of parenting skills in society" camp.

Just think about it.

We teach our kids maths, languages, history, arts and science; we even teach them how babies are made, but do we teach them about bringing up babies? Parents certainly don't actively teach kids how to bring up their kids, so the kids learn by osmosis. When the role model is sour, the kids will be for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soundofmusic

When I was young, we were just getting advanced studies in school. My mother was a housewife and took care of household chores and siblings. I didn't have a job until I graduated. Bullying at school was dealt with very harshly and teachers walked the halls; we didn't see children being stabbed to death while 50 teenagers texted the pictures to friends.

---

Ya sentimental old thing!

:D

It's tricky comparing eras. I'm kind of multi-generational now. There's when I was a kid, there's when my eldest boy was a kid - 20 years ago, and now my kids are growing up in a different world again. When my first was born, the internet didn't exist, people didn't fly planes into buildings and my mobile phone was the size & weight of a car battery.

The internet and cellphones have introduced a new, and highly sinister, component in the kids claiming heirarchal status war, but I'm not sure the violence itself is any different from 40-50 years ago*.

Yes, there were a hell of a lot more rules, and a lot more people who would grab you by the shoulder if you got out of line, but did it make us any better? Given that you, me and our generation, are completely responsible for the world we're inhabiting, I must admit to being a bit embarrassed. I think we could have done a whole lot better.

;)

*Funny coincidence, I was just talking about this yesterday. When I was 17, I was attacked for walking down the wrong street and had the almighty crap kicked out of me. I would have been that bloke on the front page of the paper nowadays, but it made no ripples and nobody saw it as that peculiar that a young bloke walking down the street had his face broken by a bunch of thugs.

Nowadays, it just gives me a good excuse for looking like this!

:D

I shudder at seeing how kids are brought up without boundaries. I almost feel guilty at times, expecting my kids to be able to behave and live within set guidelines, being a kid-Nazi compared to the laissez-faire attitude of just about every other parent.

Better to be a kid-nazi than to end up with a nazi kid. I agree with you wholeheartedly. There's time for laissez faire when they're old enough to handle it.

Closely related to teenage violence is bullying - at home, at school, in the local neighbourhood, in the workplace, in politics and in the mass media. I am particularly aware of bullying by students and teachers at school, females included, and the seemly powerlessness of principals and education authorities to act effectively against it, despite the fine rhetoric.

Humanity is reluctant to act against a trait that has been the mainstay of many a revered manager, sportsman, policeman, soldier, jailer and politician. Violence is a logical extension of bullying, and the move in recent decades towards individualism at the expense of community has hardly helped.

With bullying always on a pedestal, what a role model for our children and teenagers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

Closely related to teenage violence is bullying - at home, at school, in the local neighbourhood, in the workplace, in politics and in the mass media. I am particularly aware of bullying by students and teachers at school, females included, and the seemly powerlessness of principals and education authorities to act effectively against it, despite the fine rhetoric.

Humanity is reluctant to act against a trait that has been the mainstay of many a revered manager, sportsman, policeman, soldier, jailer and politician. Violence is a logical extension of bullying, and the move in recent decades towards individualism at the expense of community has hardly helped.

With bullying always on a pedestal, what a role model for our children and teenagers!

---

I agree with your views on bullying, but do you need to define it a bit before lumping together your list of jobs associated with it? Some might think that the jobs you list require forceful personalities, but that might not entail bullying. Take a Jailer for example. That would have to be someone who is able to withstand a prisoner who - given the chance - could well bully them. Does that necessarily lead to bullying back, or are you thinking of specific examples?

The one reason why teenage violence is on the increase globally is today people have no values in life. I have read something in the Brothers Karamazov in which it is elaborated that if people do not beleive in God or immortality everything becomes a law and man becomes capable of doing anything. The underlying philosophy there is people are afraid to commit sins because they are religiously minded and they feel what they do will exert impacts and at the same time sinners will be punished.

Today youngsters are getting astray and the main reason is they have lost their age-old values and anything is not amoral from their perspectives. If they are atheists everything is possible and that is why today crimes are increasing.

That is why we must teach children what their values are in life. Of course moral education may help them tremendously but the root of moral education is religion.

Religions breed fundamentalism and today there are bigots, diehards and most of them are kind of affiliated with some religions. But religions should not be blamed for what happen. Of course one should sieve thru them. Religions need to be reformed. Like laws. laws are at times bad and that i why laws are amended, revised and modified to make it suitable with change in values.

What will happen if we lose morality? Nothing will happen if people lose religions but if they lose moral values the world will be a very dangerous place to live in.

Religions must be reformed and new values should be inculcated in them and if teenagers are guided on moral things they will be less likely to commit crimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Some might think that the jobs you list require forceful personalities, but that might not entail bullying.

---

Of course, assertiveness is possible without a hint of bullying or violence. Perhaps a majority rarely if ever bullies: that leaves a huge remnant that do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

I have read something in the Brothers Karamazov in which it is elaborated that if people do not believe in God or immortality everything becomes a law and man becomes capable of doing anything.

---

That such a man 'becomes capable of doing anything' isn't necessarily a bad thing because such a man assumes, by necessity, with eyes open, absolute responsibility for his own actions.

I definately think there's scope in those jobs you do mention for bullying, though it can occur in the most inconspicuous.

I also think males can easily be swayed into bullying, as there is a strong physical element to some male relations - pecking order and all that. Have you ever observed all males together in a compeitive arena - be it work or play? The results can be most disturbing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I live nice & close to the heart of most of the violence committed in NZ and I'd estimate that 75%+ of the murders of teenagers are because of drugs.

Assaults; mostly little dicks with more testosterone than brains, and when you've been brought up in houses where your old man biffs your mother around every week or so, it's easy to fall into the trap.

---

:lol: Well said.

Now even in the worst of areas, the percentage of punks who who take it to a level of violence is smaller than those that don't. What causes some kids to go beyond where others won't? What causes some to cross a boundary of unacceptable behavior? There are probably a complex swirl of reasons, but I suspect that drugs are a correlating factor.

So why to people feel the need to turn to drugs and what can be done about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

So why to people feel the need to turn to drugs and what can be done about it?

---

Part of it is glamorization. Part of it is it's a thrill. Part of it is a rite of initiation within a sub culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

So why to people feel the need to turn to drugs and what can be done about it?

---

Not people. Some. When I was young, I would watch other kids, also younger kids smoke regular cigs or the harder drugs. I never did it because I never saw the point of doing; for the same reason I don't drink. I might even enjoy it, I can't tell. I've never touched booze. What I do know is that drugs, smokes and drinks cost money and I am very much in love with my money.

My uncle got addicted to drugs some 12 years ago. Why he did it? Bad company. Thugs and bad boys will always get you in trouble. I should know. Most of my friends are bad boys.

I saw many friends of mine go from good guys to thugs(drug dealers) or thieves. I was blessed with an unmoved conscience. I dealt and befriended some of the most dangerous and unstable members of society and I was never negatively influenced. What can I say? I don't weight much but I have my feet firmly grounded.

Well, concerning the topic. I haven't read all of the pages of this thread but, I don't think anyone has mentioned the family status of the doers of teenager violence.

Children from divorced families. Basically, most relationships end, a marriage being a relationship(albeit legally controlled by the govt.) will end, suffice to say the mother of the child will more likely than less get the child which means, the father will not have a steady presence on the child's life.

The fact that many, many mothers pick up their sons and move to other states/countries without telling the father of the child where they are going to, kinda leaves the child to grow angry.

There are several studies that show that most of the people in jail are from broken/divorced homes, or without a steady presence from a father figure.

Our society is dying. The birth rates are lowering and lowering with the passing of each year. With that, so does marriage follow the same path. The reality of men having no benefits when it comes to marriage and the inevitable divorce(he has to pay alimony, looses the child and the house) means more and more young(or older men) are opting out from the reproductive game.

Sadly, this implies the loss of a potential father figure for many, many kids as women are more openly approaching sperm banks or anonymous donors(one night stands) or worse, many are getting pregnant on purpose but the man, knowing of the deception doesn't even consider dating/marrying her.

I can heart that. It's sad but I see teen violence increasing the more. Fortunately for me, I was raised by an intact family which impaired in me principles, morals and ethics. That male presence in my life(my father) taught me how to be strong and adverse to risk while my mother, she taught me never to get married :blush:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

So why to people feel the need to turn to drugs and what can be done about it?

---

Why do people drink?

Many substances affect our brains in ways we find enjoyable. Bit like sex, really. 99.99r% of animals that have ever lived have indulged in sex for no other reason than procreation. We do it because we like it, we drink because we like it and we jump off high buildings because we like it.

The only thing you could do about it is re-engineer human DNA to preclude us from taking pleasure. Whether a rush is natural, as in a base-jumper, or manufactured, as in someone smoking crystal meth, we look for it in search of pleasure.

I concede that people drink for pleasure certainly, but do people smoke crystal meth for pleasure or as a means of escape? That is not to say that people don't drink to escape, of course they do, but I would argue more people turn to hard drugs as a "way out" - as a way out of a society that they don't feel they have a stake in perhaps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

I concede that people drink for pleasure certainly, but do people smoke crystal meth for pleasure or as a means of escape? That is not to say that people don't drink to escape, of course they do, but I would argue more people turn to hard drugs as a "way out" - as a way out of a society that they don't feel they have a stake in perhaps?

---

People take drugs for pleasure in the same way as they drink. The attraction is the illegality, and it also inculcates a fellow feeling between the takers initially. Imagine the pride of doing something you assume hardly anyone else knows about or can enjoy. This is the very Devil in my view. It makes the slide into hard drugs easier. "If cannabis isn't so bad, perhaps everything I've heard about coke/ heroin is wrong..." may be the kind of thought process, along with an "I can take it" feeling.

The other thing of course is that there is an implied acceptance and promotion of drugs in society. The law says one thing, whilst celebrities, films stars, rock Gods etc clearly flout the whole thing, as does the local dealer. It is implicit in the term rock star lifestyle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Why do people drink?

Many substances affect our brains in ways we find enjoyable. Bit like sex, really. 99.99r% of animals that have ever lived have indulged in sex for no other reason than procreation. We do it because we like it, we drink because we like it and we jump off high buildings because we like it.

The only thing you could do about it is re-engineer human DNA to preclude us from taking pleasure. Whether a rush is natural, as in a base-jumper, or manufactured, as in someone smoking crystal meth, we look for it in search of pleasure.

---

This is wherein exactly people who call themselves rationalists, empiricists, atheists, scientists make hypothesized propositions. They make so many baseless theories out of just imaginations. How do you prove that animals indulging in sex do so out of the desire for procreation? This is simply a dogmatic idea, a hypothesis with no scientific proof.

Maybe you may say man has more sexual hormones and enjoy it more than animals. But this has things feelings and feelings, emotions, passions, compassion are immeasurable attributes and no scientific instruments can gauge them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

I concede that people drink for pleasure certainly, but do people smoke crystal meth for pleasure or as a means of escape? That is not to say that people don't drink to escape, of course they do, but I would argue more people turn to hard drugs as a "way out" - as a way out of a society that they don't feel they have a stake in perhaps?

---

I think that's a common fallacy; that only flawed people take up drugs. It certainly applies to some, but most drug addicts and alcoholics still work for a living, so I can't buy the "opt-out" theory.

I agree with your logic on crystal meth - you'd think only the insane would want to try it, but the thing is, it has an unbelievably good high and many people who are hooked on it started out with an "I'm not going to get hooked..." attitude only to wake up one morning and find they are. Just like alkies.

Look at the damage alcohol causes in society, let alone drunk driving. I figure people must be insane to drink more than a glass of wine with dinner, but they still do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

People take drugs for pleasure in the same way as they drink. The attraction is the illegality, and it also inculcates a fellow feeling between the takers initially. Imagine the pride of doing something you assume hardly anyone else knows about or can enjoy. This is the very Devil in my view. It makes the slide into hard drugs easier. "If cannabis isn't so bad, perhaps everything I've heard about coke/ heroin is wrong..." may be the kind of thought process, along with an "I can take it" feeling.

---

Just that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

The other thing of course is that there is an implied acceptance and promotion of drugs in society. The law says one thing, whilst celebrities, films stars, rock Gods etc clearly flout the whole thing, as does the local dealer. It is implicit in the term rock star lifestyle.

---

Two in a row!

When you've grown up in a trailer and see one of your pals driving around in a new BMW, the lifestyle looks pretty damned good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

This is wherein exactly people who call themselves rationalists, empiricists, atheists, scientists make hypothesized propositions. They make so many baseless theories out of just imaginations. How do you prove that animals indulging in sex do so out of the desire for procreation? This is simply a dogmatic idea, a hypothesis with no scientific proof.

---

Part of science is observation - quite a major part, actually, because everything has to be recorded so it's available for others to check - and believe it or not, quite a few scietists have spent collectively thousands of years studying the sex life of just about every animal known to mankind.

So far, there are three species whose members do not engage in sex for procreation only: humans, bonobos and dolphins. There may be others, but they're the three I know for sure.

Of every other species, they only have sex when the female is fertile. That's it. The only time animals other than our couple of mates above, is when the female is likely to get pregnant. As soon as she does, that's it, no more sex until next time she's fertile.

Animals' "desire" to have sex is 100% evolutionary, embedded information. No sex = no species.

No theorising involved - you can either believe the evidence or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

Maybe you may say man has more sexual hormones and enjoy it more than animals. But this has things feelings and feelings, emotions, passions, compassion are immeasurable attributes and no scientific instruments can gauge them.

---

Mate, I do mean this in the nicest possible way, because I think you're one of the good guys, but I would recommend getting some basic scientific knowledge.

We can indeed measure emotions and what they do to a human body. In fact, thanks to MRI scanning of human brains, we can even watch emotion working in the human brain, where they're created.

We don't understand them, sure, but we've only been able to discern some of them in the brain for very few years, so we need a bit more time before coming up with all the answers.

Science rocks, mate! I guess that's one of the things that drew me to materialism - science is so much more exciting than fiction. Instead of someone drawn representation of a mythical being, we can look at actual pictures of animals that live thousands of metres below where sunlight penetrates the sea, or others that are only microns in length and live on our bodies, unbeknown to us.

Some things, like atruism aren't measurable in the way that human emotion is, but I think we can make pretty convincing logical arguments as to why animals are conditioned to it.

But then I'd be turning it into the evolution thread!

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I think that's a common fallacy; that only flawed people take up drugs. It certainly applies to some, but most drug addicts and alcoholics still work for a living, so I can't buy the "opt-out" theory.

---

I don't know. I'm not saying that only flawed people take up drugs or that drug takers don't work, but that for many low income, unemployed, abused, whatever - drugs do represent an alternative, in dealing or taking to forget. I'm aware that there are many drug takers who are well in control of what they take, not all drug takers are addicts, but of the drug addicts and dependents how many of them are taking to escape?

Quote:

---

science is so much more exciting than fiction. Instead of someone drawn representation of a mythical being, we can look at actual pictures of animals that live thousands of metres below where sunlight penetrates the sea, or others that are only microns in length and live on our bodies, unbeknown to us.

---

I'm not going to pick spots on what is obviously a passage of passion (which is definitely good) but some people prefer fiction regardless. The old art Vs science debate is never dead...thought I'm sure somewhere they can coexist...

"flawed person"...




ahhhh.


Very weird term..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

I'm not going to pick spots on what is obviously a passage of passion (which is definitely good) but some people prefer fiction regardless. The old art Vs science debate is never dead...thought I'm sure somewhere they can coexist...

---

Don't get me wrong, it's not a case of prefrring non-fiction, or art vs science. I don't see any contradiction between art and science. What I was getting at is the sense of wonder, aweand amazement that people often seek supernatural means for. Some of us can get those kicks from the natural universe, and art's a part of it. Salvador Dali [/insert favourite artist] neither proves nor disproves anything, his paintings are just brilliant.

[QUOTE=Neely;810078]I don't know. I'm not saying that only flawed people take up drugs or that drug takers don't work, but that for many low income, unemployed, abused, whatever - drugs do represent an alternative, in dealing or taking to forget. I'm aware that there are many drug takers who are well in control of what they take, not all drug takers are addicts, but of the drug addicts and dependents how many of them are taking to escape?



I don't think it starts so much like that, but it may come to it. Remember, the initial attraction is the social thing - at whatever level - rock god or young kid. It takes a few years to become beaten down. Drug takers initially choose, but then gradually lose the choice, like alcoholics.

You may be right about some unemployed people, but a number are unemployed because their habit already makes them unemployable until they're straightened out.

One bloke I know currently is on a methodone programme. He's definately trying by coming to classes etc. He's also a nice bloke. He's definately not trying to kill himself, but he was back on the heroin over the summer, partly due the crowd he was hanging about with - the socialising. It's a terrible shame.

The OP (you can read an excerpt in the first post of this thread):

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8366113.stm

Is it true that teenagers are becoming more violent?

---